Beyond Prompts: A Systematic Study of LLM-Based Machine Translation Evaluators

Large Language Models (LLMs) are considered to be a more efficient and cost-effective alternative to human judgment for Machine Translation (MT) evaluation. With MT evaluation spanning a large number of language pairs, domains and levels of annotation granularity, LLMs must be thoroughly evaluated across these dimensions before being reliably used as alternatives to human evaluation. In this paper, we evaluate the performance of LLMs for two prominent MT quality evaluation schemes: Multidimensional Quality Metrics (MQM) and Error Span Annotation (ESA) by comparing their agreement with human annotators. We present results on a long-context test set of 70 language pairs and the publicly available WMT23 and WMT25 data, investigating both score and error span annotation agreement across a variety of language pairs and domains. Our results show that while LLM agreement with human annotators exceeds agreement between human annotators for some evaluation tasks, both vary substantially across annotation schemes, language pairs and domains and remain unreliable for most settings. Furthermore, we identify challenges facing both human and LLM annotators: humans are particularly challenged by fine-grained MQM annotations and low-resource language pairs, while LLMs struggle with minor errors, wrong language variants and error span annotation. Our results highlight the potential for improvement for both human and LLM annotation performance, possibly through human-LLM collaborative annotation pipelines that address the reliability issues identified in this work.

LLM-based machine translation evaluation can closely match human judgments, but in practice it remains largely diagnostic, with the signals rarely translating into direct quality improvements under real production constraints. We propose a two-stage, evaluator-guided automatic post-editing framework that turns MQM-style evaluation into targeted repairs: a retrieval-augmented LLM evaluator outputs structured, span-level MQM diagnoses under an explicit edit contract, and a separate LLM post-editor applies minimal edits restricted to those diagnoses. This separation improves controllability and reduces paraphrastic drift compared to one-stage "judge-and-refine" baselines. In a systematic study involving seven LLMs spanning three model providers and seven languages, our best configuration consistently improves both COMET-22 and COMETKiwi scores over one-stage post-edit methods, while the evaluator's error spans and severities show strong agreement with human MQM annotations and human editor preferences.

Machine-translated benchmarks are widely used to assess the multilingual capabilities of large language models (LLMs), yet translation errors in these benchmarks remain underexplored, raising concerns about the reliability and comparability of multilingual evaluation. We address two practical gaps: (i) how well automatic MQM-style error spans from LLM judges and a span-aware QE baseline (xCOMET-XXL) match expert human span annotations on benchmark translations, and (ii) how strongly translation errors (as opposed to source-side issues in the English original) explain accuracy drops on translated benchmarks. We find that span agreement is non-trivial on naturally occurring benchmark translations, and that target-side translation errors are consistently associated with measurable, percentage-point drops in translated accuracy even after controlling for English correctness and source-side anomalies.